Many internet web sites like to
rank the fruits. You can see right away that these rankings are wrong and bad, both because their results are stupid, and for the reason those results are stupid, which is that they were assembled using a lousy-ass amateurish methodology. Amateur bush-league-ass fruit-rankers are wronger than hell, basically.

Here at Deadspin, we have avoided the pitfalls inherent to ranking the fruits according to the bad fruit opinions of one rando dingus. We've deployed science to create a correct ranking of fruits, based on the collected and analyzed fruit judgments of
many rando dinguses. It's a sophisticated polling methodology, but in layperson's terms, we created a "spreadsheet" with "a bunch" of fruits "listed" on it, and then everybody "assigned" a "numerical value" between 1 and 10 to each "entry" on the "list," and we used the "spreadsheet's" built-in "math" "function" to "calculate" the "average" "score" of each fruit.

We didn't include things that are fruit in the, like, horticultural or botanical sense or whatever, but that tend not to be eaten in a fruit-like manner (tomato, avocado, coconut, peppers, etc.). And we didn't include obscure-ass bullshit like horned melons and so forth, because there's only so much time in the day for fruit-ranking and those things weren't gonna win anyway.